gun control nuts

Pelosi says yes more gun control!
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...tions-n2391259

this one says "repeal it" damn it!!!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/o...dment-nra.html

2nd amendment is a cancer
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/06/o...tion%2Fopinion

gun control is cracked up, but I still want it anyway.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.a143b6c7d115

Gun Control is a hot topic especially among those who break the law for a living.

Jim


https://youtu.be/DiKnaiWWJ0k

Gun Control is a hot topic especially among those who break the law for a living.

Jim


https://youtu.be/DiKnaiWWJ0k Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well lets see.. Honduras. Population of 6.2 mil. Doesn't allow guns to be owned, but has a death rate from gun violence of 67.18 per 100k.
Sweeden ALSO has 6.2 mil population, requires everyone to own a gun that's of legal age, and barely has 1.4 per 100k deaths.. And over 90% of those are from suicides.. NOT homicides.

THAT along with Chicago and other "High gun control states/cities" which also seem to have the HIGHEST kill count by guns, proves gun control doesn't do Jack diddly squat to stop gun violence..

Well lets see.. Honduras. Population of 6.2 mil. Doesn't allow guns to be owned, but has a death rate from gun violence of 67.18 per 100k.
Sweeden ALSO has 6.2 mil population, requires everyone to own a gun that's of legal age, and barely has 1.4 per 100k deaths.. And over 90% of those are from suicides.. NOT homicides.

THAT along with Chicago and other "High gun control states/cities" which also seem to have the HIGHEST kill count by guns, proves gun control doesn't do Jack diddly squat to stop gun violence.. Originally Posted by garhkal

I believe Sweden's gun laws are highly restricted. not everyone can get them.

I think you might be thinking of Switzerland.

Well lets see.. Honduras. Population of 6.2 mil. Doesn't allow guns to be owned, but has a death rate from gun violence of 67.18 per 100k.
Sweeden ALSO has 6.2 mil population, requires everyone to own a gun that's of legal age, and barely has 1.4 per 100k deaths.. And over 90% of those are from suicides.. NOT homicides.

THAT along with Chicago and other "High gun control states/cities" which also seem to have the HIGHEST kill count by guns, proves gun control doesn't do Jack diddly squat to stop gun violence.. Originally Posted by garhkal

I don't know where you got your information on gun laws in Honduras.

"Under the existing law, citizens are allowed to own as many as five personal firearms."

Source: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Amer...-in-the-region

"The Small Arms Survey says the most popular gun in Honduras is the 9mm handgun, "which can be legally purchased and owned" — undermining the meme’s claim that Hondurans are banned from owning guns."

Source: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...witzerland-gu/

I think you meant to compare Honduras to Switzerland, and not Sweden, since it is Switzerland where there is a misconception that gun ownership is required. Men must serve in the military and are issued guns but they can't have ammunition in their home. When they complete their military service, they must return the gun. Anyway, read the second article I cited.

The city in this country with the highest homicides per capita is not Chicago but rather New Orleans, where it is rather easy to purchase and own a gun. And in every study ever done on the subject, the more guns on the street, the more homicides.

"After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."

Source: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/f...uns-and-death/

https://www.livescience.com/39813-gu...ms-deaths.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/su...e-killing.html

https://thinkprogress.org/more-guns-...-37ae003e8bb5/

Just to be clear, I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I most definitely support banning of the bump stock.

These fuckers are totally insane.

More guns = more deaths.

Period.

the second amendment was not meant just for hunting or even home defense alone

but as a check on tyrannical governments and police states

no wonder conservatives appreciate it, because of those three things, and the left wants it gone

rampage shooters look for soft targets- they aren't attacking police stations yet- small town texas rodeos may be the last place so attacked.

nra members aren't known as gun offenders

the media reports one side of the gun issue only-every time theres some kind of mass shooting unless its in Chicago. I understand that, they go with what sells, but even in their indepth reporting , where they attempt to cover the topic, they don't cover the other side

there's something like 4-6% of gun owners reporting the defensive use of guns each year. add to that the unreported defensive use of guns.

even at say 40% of the adult population as gun owners (4 in 10 americans say they either own a gun or live in a home where there is a gun) (adult population over 250 million) and even dividing that in half as if at least two adults were in each household, that's 50 million gun owners (actually more but ok) and at 4% that's 2 million defensive uses of guns per year

how many lives were saved , or mayhem or rape stopped by gun ownership? who can say but it seems significant

my current theory on paddock's motivation is he was a demented leftie who took it upon himself to do something so horrific, such that a groundswell would rise to repeal the 2nd amendment- just saying- until something better comes along

Gun Control is a hot topic especially among those who break the law for a living.Jim Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

I've seen several "gun-controllers" stammer and stutter when asked to describe in detail legislation that would have prevented the Las Vegas from obtaining firearms that could cause the type of damage he visited upon unarmed, innocent concert goers.

Does anyone believe a law in Chicago that no Black people can own firearms would reduce the slaughter rate between Black people in Chicago? Or would Black Lives Matter, the NAACP, and the ACLU raise hell about it?

The "gun-controllers" neglect TO THINK that those who wish mischief are creative!



Or cooking utensils ...

the second amendment was not meant just for hunting or even home defense alone

but as a check on tyrannical governments and police states

no wonder conservatives appreciate it, because of those three things, and the left wants it gone

rampage shooters look for soft targets- they aren't attacking police stations yet- small town texas rodeos may be the last place so attacked.

nra members aren't known as gun offenders

the media reports one side of the gun issue only-every time theres some kind of mass shooting unless its in Chicago. I understand that, they go with what sells, but even in their indepth reporting , where they attempt to cover the topic, they don't cover the other side

there's something like 4-6% of gun owner's reporting the defensive use of guns each year. add to that the unreported defensive use of guns.

even at say 40% of the adult population as gun owners (4 in 10 americans say they either own a gun or live in a home where there is a gun) (adult population over 250 million) and even dividing that in half as if at least two adults were in each household, that's 50 million gun owners (actually more but ok) and at 4% that's 2 million defensive uses of guns per year

how many lives were saved , or mayhem or rape stopped by gun ownership? who can say but it seems significant

my current theory on paddock's motivation is he was a demented leftie who took it upon himself to do something so horrific, such that a groundswell would rise to repeal the 2nd amendment- just saying- until something better comes along Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

First., people who are left of center do not "want it gone".

I agree that NRA members are not usually gun offenders.

I doubt that 4-6% of gun owners used their guns in self-defense in a given year. I think the 40% of households having a gun in their home sounds correct. But the rest is pure opinion not backed up by anyone. Here are some dissenting opinions. You can always argue that people don't always report violent crimes but I doubt you can get to 2 million defensive uses of guns.

"The center also dives into the thorny thicket of how often the presence of a gun stops a crime — either violent or against property, such as a burglary — from happening. The gun lobby trots out an annual figure of 2.5 million such instances. But an analysis of five years’ worth of stats collected by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey puts the number much, much lower — about 67,740 times a year."

Source: http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opini...619-story.html

"Between 2007 and 2011, 29,618,300 people experienced a violent crime, but only 235,700–0.8 percent — of victims used or threatened to use a gun in self-defense. Findings from both the VPC and NCVS supplement studies verifying that more guns lead to more crimes."

Source: https://thinkprogress.org/the-number...-2bc6efae586c/

I believe Sweden's gun laws are highly restricted. not everyone can get them.

I think you might be thinking of Switzerland. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

I might be.. I keep getting those 2 countries mixed up..

I don't know where you got your information on gun laws in Honduras. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I was getting it from another site. So i will admit it might be wrong.

[QUOTE=SpeedRacerXXX;1060056763] The city in this country with the highest homicides per capita is not Chicago but rather New Orleans, where it is rather easy to purchase and own a gun. And in every study ever done on the subject, the more guns on the street, the more homicides./quote]

And how many of those guns used in those shootings are legally purchased?

the second amendment was not meant just for hunting or even home defense alone

but as a check on tyrannical governments and police states

no wonder conservatives appreciate it, because of those three things, and the left wants it gone Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Hence why i rail against any sorts of controls.

nra members aren't known as gun offenders Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

ANd if you look at the stats, every one of the mass shootings we have had since the 80s, with the exception of Roof, were perpetrated by a Registered Democrat, or someone who claims to be a liberal. NOT one was done by a registered NRA member.

there's something like 4-6% of gun owners reporting the defensive use of guns each year. add to that the unreported defensive use of guns.
even at say 40% of the adult population as gun owners (4 in 10 americans say they either own a gun or live in a home where there is a gun) (adult population over 250 million) and even dividing that in half as if at least two adults were in each household, that's 50 million gun owners (actually more but ok) and at 4% that's 2 million defensive uses of guns per year

how many lives were saved , or mayhem or rape stopped by gun ownership? who can say but it seems significant Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

And to me, the reason they are un-reported, is that the left wing media doesn't WANT TO show guns in a positive light.

The "debate" about "gun control" is about the same as "climate change," without carefully defining the parameters and words used the "debate" or even a meaningful discussion is really a waste of time.

This country already has "gun control."

This Earth already has "climate change."

So, take a poll. And ask who is "for" ... "gun control"!

It's meaningless. Even the NRA is "for" ... "gun control"!

Wayne LaPierre:
".. what the NRA is fighting for is reciprocity, to enforce the existing federal gun laws and to protect Americans' right to protect themselves."

These fuckers are totally insane.

More guns = more deaths.

Period. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Some of those deaths might be the result of self defense. Ever thought about that?


Jim

FUCKEM! ... let them stick there heads between their legs and die of methane poisoning...

The debate about 2nd amendment rights is just that: A debate.
Frankly a useless waste of time debate.
Because in order to remove it, that would require a constitutional amendment. Which would never pass.

The whole concept of gun control will have to comply with 2nd amendment, or laws that attempt to impose stupid crap will continue to get tossed by the courts, as quite a few overly broad laws have been.